tv [untitled] April 14, 2013 12:44am-1:14am PDT
support for ac transit for the increased cost in the temporary terminal. some insurance costs, and security and parking control officers. and the temporary terminal is funded by regional measure to the revenue and a small amount of advertising revenue and rent from gray found and i am happy to answer the questions but we will be presenting you with numbers next month. >> i kind of have a just... i don't know. the thing about the other the cal trans, reading this, i can't determine whether the cal translegal department asked us to replace cal transgeneral parking or whether it is the parking for the lawyers for cal trans. yes, it is for the lawyers they parked in the former. >> yes, they parked in the former transbay, terminal. and this is a condition as for
so long as their offices in san francisco that we will provide them with replacement parking that was in the formal terminal. >> that is very interesting. >> those lawyers. >> how many parking spaces? >> we pay for about 20 spaces it is just under 7600 a month. >> you think that they would be better to us, wouldn't you? >> okay. and i actually have the exact same question when i read the report. i was wondering if that was... >> it was the employees and that is amazing is there a team so in congress with what this project is about, and what the city's first transit policy. do we think that we have the opportunity to renegotiate that? >> a point that is raised by this board every year. the cal trans, director always seems to be absent when this question is asked. your predecessor offered to
provide them with muni fast passes but i don't believe that it was taken up of. >> it was a condition of the transfer of the land, and at the time what we were getting was not worth the argument. what will need to happen is that we need state legislation to move them back to oakland to their office in oakland on west grand that is what we would need to do. >> there is not an opportunity to mode identify the agreement. >> and i don't think that it is about the money. >> the principal that we are using the funds to pay for the employee parking. and >> and i understand that. you have to go back to the ctc it is not worth opening up that document. >> where is matthew and ross when you need them? >> i do have one other question, i guess that this is what we will be looking at is just a slice of the program, but, given that it is likely we will be considering changing the over all program budget and
i'm guessing the likelihood is that may effect the next fiscal year budgets and since a lot of those costs will be the steel costs that are upcoming, do we anticipate having challenges in the one slice adjusting the revenues sufficiently to cover the single year cost and in other words, do we anticipate any catch throw issues putting aside the funds for the program? >> i would not anticipate that for this upcoming year. they are planned and since we have those in hand and even if the steel does not come in at what we had originally budgeted in the 1.589 base line budget, there should be significant... sufficient revenue from that land sale to certainly fund the upcoming physical year. >> thank you. >> and go ahead. >> so grant that there is no
cash throw problem in the next fiscal year, when do we do the total budget analysis to understand how that is got to be changed? rather than the single year slice? >> we are planning to bring you the phase one revised budget by july at the latest. because we have to have an approved phase one budget to go to fitch and get our rating for tifiia and so no later than july. >> okay, i hope that we can allocate a lot of time to understand that. >> well, i agree, i think that the board members should not make appointments that day and just stay in our meeting. >> what day in july? >> yeah, well right now, the regular board meeting day is the third, the second thursday of the month in july. if that changes we will let you know in the sufficient amount
of time. >> to stay on that theme, i feel the same way, in fact, i was going to make a general sort of thing that i find it kind of scary that we have 3-year-old budget. that, you know, back for the phase one, that we would be extending essentially another year without reexamining it and i think that maybe, my suggestion is that the next meeting, that we definitely get the order and straighten in and if it is... is there like for the cities there is a legal requirement to get in a budget by... >> is there one for us? >> remember, there is a difference between the phase one budget that we will be presenting to you and the fiscal year budget for the year which is a slice of a budget. we are bringing you the phase one budget no later than july, the revised one. and we are going to wait for the steel bids to come in. but the budget that sarah is talking about is a slice and that easily can be amended if
depending on what we agree to in july so it is not an issue. so we are now in april, and there is may, june, by july we will bring you, because on april 25th we are putting out the bids for the three package and in may i am bringing you the cast notes and by the way i will give you all good news. we will be bringing you a contract for that and so remember, four packages we broken four into four packages the cast notes and the three zones and the cast notes, we are going to be bringing you a recommendation for a package that is under the engineer's estimate and so that is good news which is slightly under $16.2 million which was the engineer's estimate and so that is great. so now we have to get the other three packages at a fair and reasonable price and that is what we hope to do by providing for more competition and then in that, in july we will bring you the final budget and then it won't be just a budget by
itself it will be a company plan of how we are going to pay for it. >> but, my question was unless there is a legal requirement that the state or somebody else, but to have a budget to have sort of budget to have 2013-14 budget in place by june 30th. >> there is. >> that is why we are going and that is why we are going ahead of the horse? >> that is right. >> that is what i wanted to know. >> we first bring you the presentation and if you have any questions we come back to you with the final one, the slice. >> for this total one phase budget we will have a chance to talk about that before the meeting in which we will have to adopt it. >> in other words, we are... >> we are going to have to it depends now as a board usually likes to and we will try and have to schedule the special meetings for that because usually the board likes to take august off. and so i will have to schedule a meeting because we have to go
to fitch in july and in between the time that we get the bids from the steel package and we will get those in and we can have an informational item and a second one for adoption no later than july. >> that sounds like what we god to do. >> we don't have to do that but we can. if we can get the quorum, we could do that. or else we have, and we send it to you in advance and we have one meeting and everyone stays here and doesn't leave for other events because i don't think that there is anything more important than this project. i am unapologetically biased that way. it will be schedule as a special meeting in between. >> between the july 11, and the august? >> no, in between, when we get the bids and then in july. so we could have two meetings in july, for example. >> yeah. >> i am taking a vacation starting the 13th.
>> that is the problem. the board members are gone. >> director metcalf we will do our best. >> okay. any other questions or comments? >> okay. >> thank you very much. >> okay. >> and move into item nine which is approving the draft anticipated disadvantaged business enterprise participation level program for the physical years, 13-14, through 15-16 and authorization of the relesion of the draft adpl for the 30 day public review and 45 day public comment process. >> directors, we have calculated a percentage for our fta funded contracts which are the administrative type of contract and legal services that it would be planned to be awarded between october first of this year, and september 30th of 2016. with when we will run the methodology it will run into a
14.8 percent dbe for those contracts and also calculate at a small business target, although, it is not legally required by any of our grant ors and it is not something that we would report to any of the grant ors, we do want to continue to focus on small business, participation and so for, all contracts to be awarded in that time period, not just fta funded contracts. which are estimated to a total of over 394 million, we would suggest a target of 7 and a half percent for those contracts for dbe and sbe participation. and we will put this out for a public comment. we will send it to all of our stake holders and we will be participating in the business out reach communities and public participation process to get comments, last fall or last summer we held a small roundtable of our offices in the small business advantaged business and we plan to do the same this year to get their comments on this and we will come back to you in june for
final afinal approval. and although we have never received any comments that would have caused us or never received comments before, but nothing that causes us to adjust the percentage. >> how do the proposed numbers compare to the current year numbers? >> it is very interesting, the 14.8 percent is right where we are at right now, program-wide, 14 percent for the dbe for these last set of three fiscal years. >> this is something new? >> i would call this a program wide ebe goal, it is not anything that we will report to fta because they have made it clear that they are not interested any more. but i think that it is a good threshold for us to keep in mind because we don't lose participation on all of the contracts not just those that are funded. >> the 7 and a half percent is
just based on the dbe and that would probably be higher when we take these into consideration as well. how did we arrive at the 7.5. >> you can take the attachments here and walk you through the methodology and not to get too much into it, but you take your contracts that are planned to be awarded and you look at the north american classification codes associated with each of those contracts and then you look into dbe data base for dbes that are certified to do that type of work and then you look in the census bureau for the type of businesses in the 9 counties that are registered for that type of work and then you just do the proportions. >> this is a similar methodology to the fte? >> we used the same just on the broader set of contracts. >> how does that compare with our existing empirical performance. >> 7 and a half percent is much lower, since it is just the participation, it is at 20
percent for the life of the program. and 21 percent right now for these past three years and so i think that 7 and a half percent is a good target to keep in mind for dbes but i would expect it to be much higher when you consider sbes. do we not have data? it is hard to apply the same methodology to run the sbe numbers because the data bases don't use the same types of classifications. the codes are not in it. >> i understand. i don't mean to belabor this. i think that we were surprised when the fda said that this is how we want you to do the calculation because it seemed a narrow and technical way as opposed to looking at the past performance and so we have to do that for their purposes but for the other program, i think that it is great that you guys are doing, we don't have to use their, some what limited methodology, we can just look
at our own past performance and we can look at other projects in the region and i would want us to be inadvertently setting a low target, even though it is, again, it is just a target and it is not for the reporting purposes, i think that it is still important. >> sure, we can take a look at that and what we will do when we come back to you in june, we will look at the sbe percentage distinctly from the dbe percentage from the program wide contract. >> that will be great, thank you. >> anyone else? >> thank you. >> okay. >> so, no members of the public want to address you on that item so you are looking for a motion. >> so moved. >> second. >> first and a second, director harper aye. >> lloyd, aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> reiskin. >> aye. >> item nine is approved and go ahead and move into item ten. >> which is approving the
recommended applicants to the transbay joint pores authority. >> bev will report on this item. >> thank you, maria and directors and members of the board. we put out this, we had the cac going for six years now, and i want to acknowledge jim lacerous who has been a member has termed out it has been a member and served as at chair for the entire six years to date. so his participation is appreciated. we had a great response to our interest for applicants this year and we had a total of 19 applications and virtually without exception, the candidates brought a wealth of experience in multiple areas of
which we are looking for on our cac. if you are not familiar our cac is 15 members, and each of these 15 seats is designated to have a specific area of interest or representation including a bicycle advocate and a disabled advocate and a representative from labor, a resident of district six and almost without exception, people brought a breadth of experience to the applications. we have a total of 7 recommendations brought to you today. and including three returning members and four new members to the cac. and two of the new applicants are here today, and they would be available to speak if you would like to. and if you have any other questions, i would be happy to answer them. >> i have no questions, on the recommendation and i am happy
to support it. i know at least two of the folks and they are great and would be great additions. just a question on the functioning of the cac, aside from the appointments, we don't ever kind of see or hear anything from the cac or if we do i have forgotten. are there, do they make recommendations to the tjpa? is there any... do they issue reports? is there anything that comes out that would be relevant or of interest to the board? >> well a lot of the cac has been to serve as a public forum for discussion of the design of the transit center and elements we have had as an example. s better market streets program come and speak to the cac so that they can understand how our ro ject is relating to that project and the bicycle improvements and the cac has
upon occasion made recommendations, but, we don't typically agendaize specific actions for the cac. >> and co-founder from cal train. cac chair or appointee make a full report to the full board of director. i would like to see to do the same, so that we can become better acquainted. >> okay. and we have offered that in the past and not recently, but jim laserous did come a few times to make certain statements. but, we could consider that. we will look at that change. >> i have a question about the ac transit rider. the appointee marla wilson. do you know whether or not she is a member of the transbay
riders group that meets monthly? >> i don't believe that she is, no. >> that bothers me, that is group that comes to the ac transit about anything on this project and they are important to me politically, 20 to 30 people and i don't care who they want to serve on this committee. but it will be somebody from that group. because i don't know marley wilson and i called up a couple of people that i knew from the transbay riders and they don't know her and i don't want us picking, and i don't not want to disparage this woman she could be great. if i can't talk to her and have her, you know, at least promise me that she is going to become a member of that group, i don't want her on this body. those are the people that the ac transit board listens to when it comes to the problems with the transbay terminal and the problems with anything to do with this and they really should be the people to say,
this is someone that we... because that way you are getting 20 riders, 20 or 30 that are active in that group as opposed to one. so i would oppose to her appointment, because you did not have a phone number for us so i could not call her. so i could at least talk to her or find out what is going on. i just, we have got a very active group, around the terminal. and we just need to now, they need to be the ones to say, here is our person that we want to listen to about that. >> well, we could do is if you would like chair person harper is just take out marla pending further investigation on that issue and we could appoint the others and then we could bring you... i believe that we... i believe that bob has put out on calls for applicants to apply everywhere and also with the group. >> we have done it with the ac
transit. and i don't know, we have not specifically gone to the ridership. >> you have spoken to the rider ship group. >> a couple of times. >> yeah, why don't we do this, why don't we take mar la out for now and go and reach out to the bus riders group and if she is a member of that and if she will become a member of that, if not let's see if they can provide a candidate, will that work? >> yeah. >> okay. >> so we will take a motion to amend the resolution to remove mar la for now. and approve the other six recommended applicants. >> so moved. >> second. >> first and second and then members of the public wishing to address you on that item? >> i would like to make a comment. >> patrick, and patrick and company. i attend many of these board meetings but you are right, i believe that the cac, is a joke.
i am sorry to say that. there is fine people there, but this board takes no notice of their activity in a minimum you should at least have their minutes so that you can see what is going on, what has come to their. i know that there is one issue about the artwork for the transbay terminal and they wrote the board a letter and no response. i don't think that they are effective and you need to make that order effective. thank you. >> thank you. >> and members of the public that want to address you on that item? >> so with a first and a second? >> harper? >> aye. >> lloyd. >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> reiskin. >> aye. >> that is four ayes item ten is approved. item eleven. >> approval. >> second. >> no members of the public wishing to address you on that. and believe that harper harper will be abstaining?
>> lloyd? >>ite aye. >> reiskin >> aye. >> and that does conclude it for today. >> we are adjourned. >> thank you. hey, guys. i'm weekly buzz. have no fear because i'm here to break down the top places to be this week. this tuesday come to the french film and wide conversation class to help non-french
speakers to discover french cinema. san francisco is offering weekly class. the class will take place in the theatre with refreshments and popcorn for a $5 donation at the door. the carnival maybe more up your alley. the annual fundraiser for mckinley elementary school. watch dogs compete for best tricks at the biggest dog event in san francisco. don't miss this from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m.. this sunday april 14th, the block party is on in full effect when this neighborhood celebrates in street parties so pedestrians and roller skaters can take over. valencia street is a place for people to party.
>> [gavel] good morning everyone. the meeting of come to order. this is the thursday april 4, 2013 meeting of the neighborhood services and safety committee. my name is eric mar. usually i am the vice chair but i am chairing this meeting. the chair david campos couldn't be here. to my left is norman yee and sitting in is scott wiener. our clerk is derek evans. please give announcements. >> please silent all cell phones and electronic devices and speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk. items
today will be on the agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. we're have six items on the agenda. we're going to move quickly one through five so we can get to the hearing on pedestrian safety and chaired by norman yee and another one by supervisor breed as well. mr. evans please call item one. >> item one is consider the issuance of on site liquor license for dion cheng and rachel cheng at 543 2nd street. >> thank you. i believe we have a staff report on this. let me just say that is there a staff report from inspector vancoal
or others on this item? >> inspector keller san francisco police department alcohol liaison unit. raichian cheng has filed a application with california alcohol and beverage control seeking type 42 on sale liquor license for 543 2nd street. this location is midblock on second street between brandon and bryant streets. this premise is located in plot 274. this plot has 94 police reports recorded for the year 2010. applicant premises is not located in the high crime area. this premise is located in census track listed. applicant premises currently in undue concentration area. letters of protest or letters